JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.

2. Petitioner, a mining officer, is a public servant, by the instant writ petition, is seeking quashing of the order dated 22.06.2017, communicated by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow, granting sanction of the Hon'ble Governor under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act 1988') for prosecution of the petitioner. In the order, it is noted that petitioner while performing his duties as a mining officer was arrested in a trap case accepting bribe at Rs. 25,000/-. Pursuant, thereof, the learned court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No. 2, Bareilly, has taken cognizance in case being Special Case No. 12 of 2014, State Versus Dr. Abhai Ranjan, arising from Case Crime No. 455 of 2014, under section 7/13 1(d) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988, vide order dated 08.04.2021.

3. The petitioner, herein, had raised objections before the learned trial court regarding the validity of the sanction order on the ground that earlier the Government had declined to grant sanction vide order dated 21.09.2016, therefore, the Government was not competent to review its order by the subsequent impugned sanction order dated 22.06.2017. The trial court rejected the objections vide order dated 08.04.2021.

4. On specific query, learned Senior Counsel informs that the trial court passed a composite order rejecting petitioners objections with regard to sanction, consequently, cognizance was taken and petitioner was summoned to face trial.

5. It is informed that the trial court order was subjected to challenge in a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being Application No. 18671 of 2021. The Court in a detailed order dismissed the application. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:

"33. Learned counsel for the applicant has miserably failed to bring on record even a single instance regarding "failure of justice" having been occasioned to the appellant. It is not a case of absence of sanction, but in this case sanction has been granted vide order dated 22.6.2017 and same is subject matter of challenge in writ jurisdiction. The authenticity or validity of this sanction could be adjudged either by the Division Bench in writ petition or at the stage of the trial, but there could not be any good reason to stall the proceedings of the case or vitiate the cognizance order in absence of any material on record which may result into "failure of justice" to the applicant. More particularly, when the legislature in its wisdom by its Section 4(4) of the Act has given a time bound period to conclude the trial of the case within a period of two years (four years maximum), stay of the proceedings would amount a luxury in favour of applicant.

34. Admittedly, this F.I.R. is of 2014 and the charge sheet was submitted on 27.11.2014, meaning thereby, about seven years have already been elapsed and only charges have been framed as yet. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order or charge-sheet or the entire proceeding of Special Case No.12 of 2014 (State vs Dr. Abhai Ranjan), arising out of Case Crime No.455 of 2014, u/s 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.-Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad, pending before Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.2, Bareilly.

35. It is expected from the court concerned that the provisions of Section 4 (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has to be kept in mind and suitable endeavour has to be made by the trial court to conclude the trial within the time specified therein.

36. The application stands DISMISSED being devoid of merit.

6. While rejecting the application an observation has been made in para 33 of the order, wherein,